Part 3 (2/2)

The result was that the king, without recalling his edict, ordered that the whole matter should be fully discussed in a meeting of the princ.i.p.al inhabitants of Canada, including the administrators and magistrates, and that a report of the proceedings should be sent to him for his information and further consideration.

Thus was the question referred back to Canada, and an appeal actually made, after a fas.h.i.+on, to public opinion. The meeting ordered by the king was held at Quebec on the 26th October. The persons composing it were chosen by Frontenac and d.u.c.h.esneau jointly, and were beyond doubt as influential men as could be found in the country--nineteen in all, exclusive of those who attended in an official capacity. The sense of the meeting was overwhelmingly against the suppression of the traffic, and against the stand taken by the bishop in making a ”reserved case” of the selling of liquor to the Indians, or, in other words, excluding from the sacraments all who were guilty of that act. Two of the delegates, the seigneurs of Berthier and Sorel, said that the prohibition which was then nominally, and to a considerable degree practically, in force worked injury, not only to trade, but to the Indians themselves. They could get all the liquor they wanted from the Dutch of Orange (Albany); and the Dutch rum was not nearly so good as the French brandy. The last time the Indians came to trade at Cataraqui, they had forty barrels of Dutch spirits with them, having laid in a supply owing to their apprehension that they might not be able to obtain any from the French.

But of course they would cease coming to Cataraqui or trading with the French at all, if they could not get liquor. They denied that the drinking of brandy prevented the Indians from becoming Christians. Did not the Christian Indians in the missions near Montreal drink brandy?

Yet they remained docile to their teachers, and were not often seen drunk--a statement which certainly might have been challenged. Others urged the argument with which we are already familiar that, if the Indians had to get their liquor from the Dutch and English, they would either imbibe heresy at the same time, or be left in their heathenism.

Others again said that the disorders caused by drink amongst the savages had been greatly exaggerated, and moreover things of the same nature occurred among Indians who made no use of spirituous liquors. The ”reserved case” was doing no good; on the contrary it was troubling consciences, and had possibly already caused the d.a.m.nation of some inhabitants. Drunkenness, another delegate remarked, was not confined to the Indians. In the most civilized countries, where all were Christians, it was a common vice; yet no one thought of making a ”reserved case” for the liquor sellers. One speaker went so far as to say that the Indians would never become Christians unless they were allowed the same liberties as the French, and that the clandestine sale of liquor promoted immoderate drinking. Robert Cavelier de la Salle was strongly in favour of the trade being left open. It was for laymen, he said, to decide what was good or bad in relation to commerce, and not for ecclesiastics. There had been but little disorder, upon the whole, amongst the savages as the result of drink. He thought they were less given to intoxication than the French, and much less than the English of New York. Two delegates were entirely opposed to the trade as being hurtful to religion, and the source of moral disorders. Two others thought it should be restricted to the settlements, and that no liquor should be sold in the woods.[18]

How far the opinions of those who favoured the traffic were disinterested may be open to question. Traders are apt to consider exclusively the immediate interests of trade; and the love of gain is often sufficient to stifle the instincts of humanity. The church looked upon the Indians as its wards; but the majority of the settlers, it is to be feared, thought only of exploiting, if not of actually plundering, them. It is difficult to read the little treatise composed about twenty-five years after these events, under the t.i.tle of the _History of Brandy in Canada_, without feeling persuaded that there was more ground for the position taken by the clergy than the seigneurs and others who a.s.sembled at Quebec were willing to admit. From what the anonymous writer, evidently a missionary in close touch with the facts, says, it is clear that brandy was often made an instrument for the robbery of the unhappy Indian. We are told of one man at Three Rivers who, having made an Indian drunk, insisted next day that the score for the brandy the poor savage had taken amounted to thirty moose skins. The author of the treatise is convinced that the horrible ma.s.sacre at Lachine, of which we shall have to speak in a later chapter, was a direct manifestation of the anger of G.o.d at the drink traffic, of which that place in particular was the headquarters. If so, the warning unfortunately was not taken to heart, for the writer himself tells us that the traffic was resumed and prosecuted as vigorously as ever as soon as the village was rebuilt.

When Laval, who had just laid the corner-stone of his seminary at Quebec, saw the way things were going, he decided to start for France himself, to see what he could effect for the cause he had so deeply at heart by personal representations. The decision of the court, however, was what might have been expected under the circ.u.mstances. Two edicts were issued in the following year, one dated the 25th April 1679, confirming the regulations previously laid down respecting the _coureurs de bois_, but allowing the governor to grant hunting permits good from the 15th January to the 15th April of each year; and the other, dated 24th May, expressly prohibiting the holders of such permits from carrying liquor to the Indians, under pain of a fine of one hundred francs for the first offence, three hundred for the second, and corporal punishment for the third. The French of the settlements on the other hand were left free to sell liquor to the Indians resorting thither. The bishop was at the same time requested to make the ”reserved case” apply only to those selling under illegal conditions, which, with no little reluctance, he consented to do.

It is to be noted that the second edict contains a clause expressly entrusting its enforcement to ”Sieur, Comte de Frontenac, governor and lieutenant-general for his Majesty in the said country,” and not as previously to the intendant. Frontenac thus had it in his power, M.

Lorin observes, ”to free himself in practice from the time limits imposed, or even tacitly to authorize the hunters to carry a few goods to the Indians.” This writer, who is an ardent admirer of Frontenac, seems to regard it as a thing quite to be expected that the king's representative should seize the opportunity to violate the king's regulations. The motive, however, which he a.s.signs for such probable disobedience is a very high one: the governor was anxious to keep in touch, through the traders, with the outlying Indian tribes, in order that he might watch the course of their trade, study their dispositions, and thus be enabled to take timely measures to maintain them in right relations with the French colony. Were there ground for a.s.surance that this was his only, or even his greatly predominant, motive, we might well join with M. Lorin in considering such far-sighted devotion to the king's interests as more than a set-off to a technical irregularity. But can we? The question is one in regard to which the doc.u.ments before us, consisting mainly of the correspondence of Frontenac and d.u.c.h.esneau with the court, render it difficult to arrive at a positive conclusion. The matter will be discussed in the following chapter; meanwhile let us briefly note the further development of the _coureur de bois_ question to the end of Frontenac's first administration.

It does not appear that the ordinance of April 1679 improved the situation in the least. The law continued to be violated, as d.u.c.h.esneau affirms, with the connivance of the governor, and, as Frontenac says, with the active a.s.sistance (in favour of his special friends) of the intendant. In the month of November 1680 d.u.c.h.esneau writes to the minister, observing that the only thing to do is to try and find the best means to induce these men to return ”without prejudice to the absolute submission they owe to the king's will.” He proceeds to hint at something like a conditional amnesty, lenient treatment to be promised to all those who, returning home promptly on the publication of the king's proclamation, should ”make a sincere and frank declaration in court of the time they have been absent, for what persons they were trading in the Indian country, who furnished them with goods, how many skins they procured, and how they disposed of them.” Evidently M.

Jacques d.u.c.h.esneau was in pursuit of information; and there can be little doubt with what intent. What Frontenac wrote on the subject is not on record. It seems probable that he too suggested an amnesty; but we may doubt whether he recommended the condition proposed by his friend the intendant. The court in the month of May following granted an amnesty, the sole condition of which was that the persons concerned should return to their homes immediately on being notified to do so.

This was not to imply any indulgence for the offence in future, as another edict was pa.s.sed in the course of the same month, providing severer punishments than had previously been prescribed--flogging and branding on a first conviction, and perpetual servitude in the galleys on a second. When these edicts reached Quebec it was noticed that to the council was given the duty, not only of registering, but of publis.h.i.+ng and executing them. The governor, however, intervened, and, upon his promising to take the whole responsibility upon himself, the council agreed to leave the publication and execution in his hands. ”Under this pretext,” says M. Lorin, ”Frontenac could send officers to all the posts of the upper country; and if he was anxious to do so, it was less to partic.i.p.ate, despite the king's orders, in the fur trade, than to control the proceedings of the merchants and missionaries.” The word ”less” can hardly be said to imply unambiguous praise. Moreover who can say what motive was predominant?

Under the edict of 1679 the governor had the power of issuing an unlimited number of permits for hunting exclusively. The privilege had clearly been abused; and orders were now issued that in future twenty-five permits only should be granted each year, the holder of a permit to be ent.i.tled to take or send one canoe only with three men. In this way the amount of trade which could be done under a permit was limited. In all only twenty-five canoe loads of merchandise could be sent out annually. Moreover the intention in granting these permits was less to promote trade at a distance--an object the court never had at heart--than to reward certain supposedly meritorious individuals. It was a species of patronage which was placed in the governor's hands, and which he was expected to distribute in a judicious manner. If the holder of a permit did not wish to use it himself, he could sell it to some one else; and it not infrequently happened that a single trader would buy a number of permits, and send quite a little fleet of canoes up the river.

The era of ”trusts” was not as yet, but even here we can see the trust in germ.

[Footnote 16: _Le Comte de Frontenac_, p. 159.]

[Footnote 17: It is to be found in Margry, _Memoires et Doc.u.ments des Origines Francaises des Pays d'Outre Mer_, vol. i. pp. 301-25.]

[Footnote 18: See Report (Proces Verbal) of the proceedings of the a.s.sembly in Margry, _Memoires et Doc.u.ments_, vol. i. pp. 405-20.]

CHAPTER VI

THE LIFE OF A COLONY

The great trouble in Canada was that it was an over-governed country.

The whole population when Frontenac arrived was but little over six thousand souls, scattered over a territory stretching from Matane and Tadousac in the east, to the western limit of the Island of Montreal.

What these people needed in the first place was freedom to seek their living in their own way, and secondly, an extremely simple form of government. Instead of this they were hampered in their trade, and made continually to feel their dependence on the central power; while, in the matter of political organization, they were placed under the precise system which prevailed in the provinces of the French kingdom. In the Sovereign Council they had the equivalent of a parliament in the French--by no means in the English--sense; that is to say, a body for registering, and so bestowing a final character of validity upon, the decrees of the sovereign, and for administering justice. The executive power was divided between governor and intendant with very doubtful results. Below the Sovereign Council, as a judicial body, was the court of the Prevote. The one thing the people were not allowed to have was anything in the way of representative inst.i.tutions. Colbert, perhaps by immediate royal direction, gave the keynote of monarchical absolutism when he said, in words already quoted: ”Let every man speak for himself; let no one presume to speak for all.” Thus was the king in his strength and majesty placed over against the solitary protesting individual.

Doubtless self-government in the full sense would not have been possible at the time, seeing that self-government implies, as its first condition, pecuniary independence, and the country was not in a position to provide all the money required for its civil and military expenditure. However, possible or impossible, the thing was not thought of, or to be thought of, at the time. The result of the elaborate organization actually established was that administrators and councillors, having far too little to do, fell to quarrelling with one another in the manner already seen and yet to be seen. The Canadian colony was not really peculiar in this respect. Any one who reads in Clement's great work the voluminous correspondence of Colbert will see that strife and jealousy was the rule throughout the whole colonial service. The same spirit, in fact, prevailed which was exhibited in the daily life of the court, where every one was desperately struggling for the suns.h.i.+ne of royal favour, and where, consequently, questions of precedence and etiquette were regarded as of surpa.s.sing importance. And now a most serious question of this nature was to blaze forth in Canada.

In various despatches from the court, Frontenac had been spoken of as ”President of the Sovereign Council,” though that office had never in any formal way been attached to the governors.h.i.+p. Shortly after d.u.c.h.esneau's appointment as intendant, a royal ordinance was issued conferring the t.i.tle in question upon him. In this there was no intention whatever to diminish the rank or prestige of the governor. The idea was rather to relieve him from the drudgery of presiding at meetings of the council, by giving to the latter a permanent working head in the person of the intendant, a man a.s.sumed to be accustomed to routine business and to have the trained official's capacity for details. Any other man than Frontenac would have seen the matter in this light, and rejoiced that a subst.i.tute had been found for him in a most uninteresting duty. He still had access to the council, and whenever he chose to attend, he occupied the seat of honour as the king's immediate representative, while a lower functionary would act as chairman, put questions to the vote, and sign the minutes. To the mind of Frontenac, unfortunately, the thing presented itself in a very different light; he saw his prerogative attacked, his dignity impaired. If he was not president of the council, why was he ever so addressed in official despatches? M. d.u.c.h.esneau, on the other hand, took his stand on the stronger ground of a special ordinance appointing him to the office.

Behold the elements of a mighty quarrel!

In the early days of Frontenac's governors.h.i.+p the preamble of the proceedings in council used to read: ”The council having a.s.sembled, at which presided the high and mighty lord, Messire Louis de Buade Frontenac, chevalier, Comte de Palluau,” etc. Later it was simplified so as to read: ”At which presided his Lords.h.i.+p, the governor-general.”

After the arrival of d.u.c.h.esneau a new formula was adopted. In the minutes of the 23rd September 1675, the intendant is mentioned as ”having taken his seat as president”; and in those of 30th September we find the words ”acting as president according to the declaration of the king.” The bickering began almost from the date of d.u.c.h.esneau's arrival; but it was not till the winter of 1678-9 that it developed into actual strife. The minister received many tiresome communications on the subject, and in April 1679 he seems to think that the chief fault is on the side of the intendant, for he writes to him sharply: ”You continually speak as if M. de Frontenac was always in the wrong. . . .

You seem to put yourself in a kind of parallel with him. The only reply I can make to all these despatches of yours is that you must strive to know your place, and get a proper idea into your head of the difference between a governor and lieutenant-general representing the person of the sovereign, and an intendant.” This was hard enough, but what follows is a shade worse: he is told that in making his reports, particularly when they contain accusations, he ”should be very careful not to advance anything that is not true.” Finally, he is warned that until he learns the difference between the king's representative and himself, he will be in danger, not only of being rebuked, but of being dismissed.

<script>